1

History and Historiography of Linguistics:

Status, Standards and Standing

Pierre Swiggers1 (K.U.)

Abstract:

The paper deals with the status of linguistic historiography as an

interdisciplinary undertaking with its internal organization, and with the

methodological and epistemological standards it has to meet.

Key-words: Linguistic historiography, metahistoriography, epistemology,

methodology

Resumo:

O artigo define a historiografia linguística como uma empresa interdisciplinar,

com sua organização interna, e com os padrões metodológicos e

epistemológicos a serem atingidos no trabalho historiográfico.

Palavras-chave : Historiografia linguística, meta-historiografia, epistemologia,

metodologia

1. Linguistic historiography: defining the field

Following its professional organization, which started in the 1970s, the historiography of

linguistics has witnessed a spectacular growth in the number of practitioners – especially in

Europe, and, during the past two decades, in the Americas –; the field can also rejoice over the

existence of a number of high-standard specialized journals1. Still, a number of misgivings about

the field, the goals and methods of linguistic historiography continue to exist, not to speak of

1 Historiographia Linguistica (1974–); Histoire, Épistémologie, Langage (1979–); Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft (1991–). Another major factor in the process of institutionalization of the field has been the triannual organization of international conferences on the history of the language sciences (the first ICHoLS conference [International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences]), organized by E.F.K. Koerner, was held in Ottawa in 1978). It should also be pointed out that we now have at our disposal a series of multi-authored comprehensive overviews of the history of linguistics: see, e.g., Auroux (ed. 1989–2000), Auroux; Koerner; Niederehe; Versteegh (eds. 2000–2006), Lepschy (ed. 1994–98), Schmitter (ed. 1987–2007) and Sebeok (ed. 1975). See also the useful readers edited by Hymes (ed. 1974) and Parret (ed. 1976). For a short check-list (of readers, manuals, and collections), see Swiggers (1987a).

2

condescending attitudes on behalf of scholars who are prone to cultivate their ignorance of the

history of linguistics. It may therefore be worthwhile to set straight a number of matters that deal

with the scope and potential of linguistic historiography2.

I will start with a definition of the field3. Linguistic historiography is the interdisciplinary

study of the evolutionary course of linguistic knowledge; it encompasses the description and

explanation, in terms of discipline-internal and discipline-external factors (the impact of which

may be ‘positive’, i.e. stimulating, or ‘negative’, i.e. restraining or relegating), of how linguistic

knowledge or, more generally, linguistic know-how was arrived at and has been implemented.

This definition entails three corollaries:

(1) Linguistic historiography is a discipline which lies at the intersection of linguistics (and its

methodology), history (history of socio-cultural and institutional contexts), philosophy (ranging from

the history of ideas and epistêmês4 to the history of philosophical doctrines), and the sociology of

science5. To put it briefly: linguistic historiography offers a description and explanation of the

history of contextualized6 linguistic ideas.

(2) Linguistic historiography has to start from a heuristic7 phase, and proceeds, through a

stage of “argumentative” analysis and historical-comparative synthesis, towards a historically

grounded hermeneutics of linguistic knowledge/know-how. It asks, and tries to answer,

questions such as: how has linguistic knowledge been gained ? how has it been formulated ? how

has it been diffused (within ‘participating’ circles) ? how has it been preserved ? why has it been

preserved (or lost), and in what way ? what have been the relationships (in terms of influence,

power, short- or longlivedness, etc.) between coexistent or subsequent “stretches” of linguistic

knowledge?

2 The reader may be referred to the following set of publications dealing with methodological and epistemological problems in the field of linguistic historiography: Dutz (1990), Grotsch (1982), Hullen (ed. 1990), Koerner (1978, 1989, 1995, 1999, 2004, 2007), Schmitter (1982, 2003), Schmitter; Van der Wal (eds. 1998), Swiggers (1981a,b, 1983, 1984, 1990, 1991a, 2004, 2006, 2009). 3 For short overviews of the field and its methods, see Swiggers (1998, 2003a). 4 I am using here Foucault’s (1966, 1969) term, which offers a vast potential of applications to the history of linguistic ideas (cf. also SWIGGERS, 1997). 5 See especially the insights provided by Fernández Pérez (1986) and Murray (1994). On the interdisciplinary competences required by linguistic historiographical work, see Malkiel; Langdon (1969); and cf. Simone (1995). For an interesting perspective offered by a sociological approach of the history of philosophy, see Collins (1998). 6 For a methodological discussion of the issue of ‘contextualization’, see Law (1998). For studies illustrating the contextualized history of linguistic ideas in Antiquity, see Swiggers; Wouters (eds. 1996). Law’s manual for the history of linguistics (LAW, 2003) is an attempt at offering an account of linguistic ideas in their socio-cultural and political context. 7 With respect to the issue of heuristics, one cannot deny that historiographers of linguistics have too often relied on the “great texts” of the past. Therefore, our history has been a highly conventional one (as well as Europe-focused), excluding very often the “minor” productions (e.g., school grammars, practical dictionaries, information found in encyclopedias and general reference works). However, the sources considered “marginal” often throw light on the institutional, ideological and personal background of linguistic views and theories. Here we often touch upon the emerging state of ideas and models, as well as “hidden” self-appreciations or reflections on scientific practices which are never found in the canonical published sources. On this issue, see De Clercq; Swiggers (1991).

3

(3) Linguistic historiography asks linguistically relevant questions about historical “language-

related practices”8: as such, historiographers of linguistics can, or should, offer insights to

linguists interested in “what they are doing”9.

2. Organigram of the field

Rather than commenting on extant endeavours10 or possible practices in linguistic

historiography – in terms of (a) types of data dealt with, (b) “depth” (or coverage) of the analysis,

or (c) the more or less focusing on “internal”, or, on the contrary, “external” factors in the

historical course of linguistics – it may seem more useful to consider the organization of the field

in terms of input/output relations.

The following organigram visualizes the organization of the field:

____________________________________________________________________________

language structures/facts

↑

8 For a praxis-oriented approach of the history of linguistics, see the volume edited by Desmet; Jooken; Schmitter; Swiggers (2000). 9 One may be reminded of Saussure’s effort, in his general linguistic work, to make linguists aware of what they were actually studying and of how they should proceed. In a letter (dated January 4, 1894) he wrote to his former student Antoine Meillet: “Mais je suis bien dégoûté de tout cela et de la difficulté qu’il y a en général à écrire seulement dix lignes ayant le sens commun en matière de faits de langage. Préoccupé surtout depuis longtemps de la classification logique de ces faits, de la classification des points de vue sous lesquels nous les traitons, je vois de plus en plus à la fois l’immensité du travail qu’il faudrait pour montrer au linguiste ce qu’il fait, en réduisant chaque opération à sa catégorie prévue, et en même temps l’assez grande variété de tout ce qu’on peut faire finalement en linguistique. [...] Cela finira malgré moi par un livre où, sans enthousiasme, j’expliquerai pourquoi il n’y a pas un seul terme employé en linguistique auquel j’accorde un sens quelconque. Et ce n’est qu’après cela, je l’avoue, que je pourrai reprendre mon travail au point où je l’avais laissé”. [“Mas estou bem desgostoso de tudo isso e da dificuldade que existe em geral de se escrever dez linhas que tenham senso comum em matéria de fatos de língua. Preocupado sobretudo, há muito tempo, com a classificação lógica desses fatos, com a classificação dos pontos de vista sob os quais nós os tratamos, vejo cada vez mais a imensidão do trabalho que seria necessário para mostrar ao linguista o que ele faz, reduzindo cada operação à sua categoria prevista e, ao mesmo tempo, à enorme variedade de tudo o que se poderia fazer, finalmente, em linguística. [...] Isso acabará, contra minha vontade, em um livro em que, sem entusiasmo, eu explicarei por que não há um só termo empregado em linguística ao qual eu atribua um sentido qualquer. Não é senão depois disso, confesso, que poderei retomar meu trabalho do ponto em que o deixei.”, tradução de Cristina Altman, USP.] 10 For a critical analysis of a number of manuals for the history of linguistics, see Grotsch (1982) and Schmitter (1982).

4

linguistic thought and description

╔

epihistoriography ↑

�����

linguistic historiography

↓ ↑

metahistoriography

constructive critical contemplative

╔ symbolizes a relationship of ‘material integration’ (factual information) ↑ symbolizes the relationship between description and object (of description) ↓ ↑ symbolizes cross-fertilization or mutual enrichment

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

The basic components of this organigram can be succinctly defined as follows.

■ Linguistic structures/facts: these are the (selected) facts11 or clusters of facts relating to language

structures and language situations (in the past) that have been the object of linguistic thought and

description;

■ Linguistic thought and description: this level includes all types of practices and conceptualizations12

dealing with (even fragmentary) analysis, regulation, comparison,

(historical/geographical/typological) classification, (esthetic) appraisal of languages. The cover

term “linguistic thought and description” thus includes a wide range of linguistically (more or

less) relevant “operations” on language structures; these range from the level of folk-linguistics

(folk etymology; linguistic puns and games) and the development from notation techniques to

sophisticated models for language analysis, and methodologies for (world-wide) language

comparison. The historical course of “linguistic thought and description” constitutes the history of

linguistics (to be interpreted in its “ontological” meaning).

11 For a discussion of the singularity of historical facts in general, see Veyne (1971). 12 Swiggers (1991b) offers a framework for the study of linguistic conceptualization as underlying the formulation of (language-related) knowledge; it is based on the idea that formation of new concepts basically involves a transfer or displacement of ideas (cf. TOULMIN, 1960 and SCHON, 1963). In such a view, the constitution of linguistic knowledge basically involves a process of transposition or metaphorization. In Swiggers (1991b) I have distinguished between three levels of metaphorization: (a) flat or superficial metaphorization; (b) metaphorization involving a transfer between adjacent cognitive domains; (c) metaphorization rooted in a schematization of language structures or in a global view of language. For a study of diagrammatic or tabular symbolization in linguistic theories, see Roggenbück (2005).

5

■ Linguistic historiography: the descriptive-explanatory account13 of linguistic thought and

description in the past (the “past” extending into the historiographer’s present perfect)14;

■ Epihistoriography: this “lateral” branch of historiography concerns the history of the “agents”

(individual language scholars15 as well as groups), and “material products” (papyri, manuscripts,

books, articles, electronic texts, etc.), the latter forming the deposit of linguistic knowledge16. In

addition, the epihistoriographical component also integrates the material documentation

produced by historiographers, as a means for sustaining and strengthening metahistoriographical

research.

■ Metahistoriography: the field of reflexive activities taking as their object historiographical practices

and products17. It is possible to distinguish three basic tasks (and, hence, components) of

metahistoriography: (a) constructive; (b) critical; (c) contemplative. Constructive

metahistoriography aims at developing models for the history-writing of linguistic thought and

description, and at articulating a coherent, comprehensive and accurate metalanguage. Critical

metahistoriography consists in evaluating, at the level of empirical documentation and at the level

of methodological and epistemological principles, extant products of linguistic-historiographical

practice. Contemplative metahistoriography is concerned with defining the object and status of

linguistic historiography, with the foundation and justification of formats and profiles of

historiography, and with “transcendent” problems, such as the concept of “historical fact”, or the

notion of “truth” in the history of linguistics.

3. Approaches and profiles

The study of linguistic knowledge/know-how in its historical course lends itself to two

basic types of analysis18: (1) an “itemizing (or: itemizing-immanent) approach, focusing on the

emergence of specific linguistic insights, their formulation and diffusion, their possible

transformation (adaptation or “exaptation”), their survival or disappearance; (2) a typologizing

approach focusing on moulds (or modelizations) of linguistic knowledge.

13 As history-writing, all instances of linguistic historiography will to some extent involve a “narrative” account (see SCHMITTER, 1994). 14 I.e. the past is a bundle of segments that run to the “present”, the changing stance of the observer. 15 For a very useful collection of succinct biobibliographical accounts on scholars in the history of linguistics, see Stammerjohann (ed. 2009). 16 On the requirements of providing critical editions and commentaries on source-texts, see Gómez Asencio (2007). 17 For a wide-ranging discussion of the contents and theoretical challenges of metahistoriography, see Schmitter (1990, 2003) and Swiggers; Desmet; Jooken (1998a, b). 18 For a parallel drawn with history of a language vs historical grammar, see Swiggers (1983). As a matter of fact, the twofold approach of the history of linguistics – as a succession of formal thought-contents and techniques coupled with them, and as the development of a “linguistic culture” – has its parallel in the diachronic study of language: there also, there is the methodological choice between historical grammar and the (socio-cultural) history of a language, with both approaches highlighting different aspects of one complex evolution.

6

Approaches of the first type19 favour the analysis of (a) theories and concepts put forward

by individual authors; (b) the emergence and spread of specific terms20/concepts; (c) the reception

of doctrines, insights or techniques. Approaches of the second type will focus on the (often slow)

elaboration of “(research) programs”21 in the history of linguistics, on the continuity of a “word-

oriented approach”22 in Western linguistics from Antiquity till the 19th century, or on the general

evolution from referentially-based models to intensionally-based models, as it appears from the

history of the word classes and their accidents in Western linguistics.

There is no real antagonism between the two types of approaches, and to some extent

they can be combined within one and the same study. It is clear, however, that the itemizing

approach will be more inclined towards a history of linguistic ideas and of “linguistic

achievements”, hence a history of res gestae, whereas the second type of approach will tend

towards a history of models and programs, i.e. a history of linguistic agendas.

Also, the two types of approaches can be linked with diverging profiles of history-writing:

whereas the itemizing approach is much more liable to an “atomistic” or “conceptual-structural”

treatment, the typologizing approach is likely to use an “architectonic-axiomatic” or “theory-

correlative” profile23. But then again, a “socio-correlative” way of history-writing will impose

itself for both types when the research focus is on the social and institutional contextualization of

linguistic ideas.

4. Synopsis of the linguistic historiographer’s terminology

19 For an example of a type of study focusing on the emergence and the evolution of a particular concept (and technique), viz. subject-predicate analysis, see Elffers-Van Ketel (1991). 20 A number of historiographical studies on linguistic terms can be found in Colombat; Savelli (eds. 2001). 21 In Swiggers (1981a, 1991a; cf. 2004) I have argued for the use of a descriptive set of four research programs that can be discerned throughout the history of linguistics: the correspondence program (language viewed in its correlation with thought and reality); the descriptivist program (language viewed as being constituted of formal and functional entities and relations that can be captured in a descriptive account), the socio-cultural program (language viewed in its relation to social strata and socio-cultural configurations), and the projection program (language viewed as consisting of “districts” that can be described in terms of an intensional-logic or extensional-logic framework). In the publications referred to, the reader can find a description of each of these four programs in terms of their (a) scope, (b) area/angle of incidence, and (c) technique(s). 22 See, e.g., Law (1990). 23 By “profile” I understand the integration within the historiographical (narrative, cf. note 13) account of either (1) a focus on the chronological sequence of particular events in the course of linguistic history (atomistic profile); (2) a preference given to the internal analysis of a particular cluster of concepts corresponding to a “theory” or “model” (conceptual-structural profile); (3) a comparison of theories in terms of assumptions, hypotheses, theorems, empirical statements, predictions, etc. (architectonic-axiomatic profile); (4) a study of correlations between ideas (theories) and contexts, i.e. ecolinguistic, socio-cultural, political, institutional contexts (theory-correlative profile). It should be stressed that there is no absolute one-to-one (nor “exclusiveness”) relation between profiles and approaches: e.g., an architectonic-axiomatic profile can be applied in the frame of an itemizing-immanent analysis of a particular cluster of concepts (it will then also be directly useful for a typologizing approach).

7

The terminological apparatus24 of the linguistic historiographer crucially relates to three

areas of description and explanation:

(1) Anchoring points and clusters: here terminology deals with

(1a) discrete entities: texts25, authors, users;

(1b) continua: networks, institutions, schools, circles, societies.

(2) Evolutionary lines: here the historiographer’s terminology concerns

(2a) the general evolutionary course26: change; revolution; progress/stagnation/regress;

maintenance/loss/recurrence; continuity/discontinuity27; innovation; anticipation;

(2b) relationships in time: source; model; influence; ‘horizon de rétrospection’28; ‘(theory) clash’;

(2c) evolutionary segments: research programs29; traditions30; cynosures31; paradigms32.

(3) Contents, Formats and Strategies:

(3a) cover designations: such terms will refer to a particular theory, model or approach;

(3b) formats: here terms will refer to specific

(3b1) theoretical concepts and principles;

24 On the metalanguage of the historian in general, see Ankersmit (1981) and Swiggers (1987b). 25 In Colombat; Lazcano (eds. 1998–2000) one can find an identical-format description of a corpus of representative source-texts taken from the history of various linguistic traditions. 26 The issue of the evolutionary dynamics of linguistics should in my view (cf. Swiggers 2004, 2006) distinguish between short-term, mid-term and long-term processes (cf. Braudel’s distinction between courte durée, moyenne durée and longue durée; see BRAUDEL, 1949, 1967–70), and should be explained in terms of discrepancies and a difference in evolutionary pace between the various layers of linguistic thought and practice: a “theoretical” layer, a “technical” layer, a “documentary” layer and a “contextual-institutional” layer (cf. Galison’s three-layer model for describing the evolution in micro-physics; GALISON, 1987, 1997). 27 See Robins (1976) and Swiggers (2003). For a case-study, viz. the transformation (or ‘conversion’) of the concept of ‘etymology’, see Swiggers (1996). 28 For the use of this notion in linguistic historiography, see Auroux (1987). 29 Cf. note 21, supra, and see Schmitter (1998) and Swiggers (1981a, 1991a). 30 The notion of ‘tradition’ can be understood (and can be made operational) in a variety of ways:

1) as a ‘national’ tradition (e.g. Noordegraaf [1990], focusing on the Netherlands), ‘ethnic’ tradition (cf. WALDMAN, 1975) or ‘geographically defined’ tradition (cf. MILLER, 1975); for a wide-ranging comparison of areal-ethnic traditions of linguistics, see Itkonen (1991);

2) as a tradition linked with a scientific paradigm or type of linguistic investigation (e.g., the tradition of historical-comparative grammar); this conception of tradition can of course be combined with a ‘national’ focus (cf. GÖBELS, 1999);

3) as a tradition of ‘linguistic investment’ in function of a cultural, ideological and/or political aim; an interesting complex tradition of linguistic investment tied up with a religious and political agenda is ‘missionary linguistics’, a tradition that has become an intensively cultivated field of research in recent years (cf. Zwartjes – Altman [eds. 2005]; Zwartjes – Hovdhaugen [eds. 2004]; Zwartjes – James – Ridruejo [eds. 2007]; and see Ridruejo [2007] for a synthetic presentation of the field and methods of missionary linguistics);

4) a tradition, understood in a very broad manner, which is defined by a focus on a subgenre of linguistic practice (e.g. the tradition of bilingual/multilingual lexicography) or by a ‘topical’ focus on a particular language (cf. HÜLLEN, 1999).

31 This term is used by Hymes (1974, p.21) in order to refer to a sociolinguistically conceived paradigmatic grouping: “In short, to use current terms, a ‘sociolinguistic’ approach to the history of linguistics is necessary, if it is to approach ‘explanatory adequacy’. Such an approach might be dubbed the study of ‘cynosures and contexts’, insofar as it takes its starting point from the former. […] In sum, one will deal with the occurrence of a paradigm, or cynosure, as more than an intellectual accomplishment; one will deal with it as a process of sociocultural change”. 32 The relevance of Kuhn’s concept for the history-writing of linguistics has been critically examined by Percival (1976); see also Kuhn (1977).

8

(3b2) techniques and styles of description;

(3b3) T-theoretical terms33;

(3c) strategies: here the historiographer’s terminology should include terms (or variants of these)

such as ‘displacement of concepts’34; ‘transfer/transposition’ (of concepts/techniques);

‘bargaining’35; ‘borrowing’; ‘adaptation/exaptation/recontextualization’ (‘new lamps for old’);

‘marginalization’ or ‘eclipsing stand’, as well as terms referring to the description of the rhetorical

strategies used in propagandizing a particular theory or attacking competing theories36.

5. Perspectives

We have dealt here with the status of linguistic historiography as an interdisciplinary

undertaking, with its internal organization, and with the methodological and epistemological

standards it has to meet. As an academic discipline, the historiography of linguistics has made

tremendous progress in the past few decades: within the encompassing field of the language

sciences it has witnessed a spectacular growth, not only in the sheer number of publications, but

also in the number of academic practitioners and of national or international professional

associations and societies. However, there still remains much work to be done, not only in terms

of empirical historiographical contributions and theoretical assessments, but also with a view at

the further (and definitive) integration of linguistic historiography in academic curricula

worldwide37. More particularly, historiographers of linguistics, in collaboration with historians of

ideas and practitioners in the field of social history, should (not cease to) stress the scientific

‘standing’ of the history-writing of linguistics: as an interdisciplinary inquiry, based on solid

methodological foundations, into the history of linguistics, it contributes to fundamental insights

into the achievements (as well as missed opportunities), rewarding pathways (as well as loose

ends), principles (and pseudo-principles), techniques38 (as well as bricolages), theorems (and

33 On the use of this concept in the philosophy and history of science, see Stegmüller (1979). 34 Cf. Schon (1963, p. 36, 41): “Every theory of the formation of new concepts is also about discovering the way the world is. […] Metaphors, in this sense, are the traces left by the displacement of concepts. They bear witness to complex processes of displacement of concepts over time just as present living species bear witness to biological evolutions. […] But the displacement begins with the intimation of such a similarity and may be justified after the fact by pointing out the similarity in terms which are themselves results of displacement. Observation of analogies is the result and partial justification of the displacement of concepts”. 35 French term: marchandage. For a study of bargaining strategies in the adaptation of the Latinate word-and-paradigm model for the description of the Gallo-Romance vernaculars in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance, see Swiggers (1988). 36 See, e.g., Harris (1989), and, more generally, Harris (1993). 37 See Fernández Pérez (2001, 2007) for reflections and proposals concerning the academic implementation of the historiography of linguistics. 38 See Swiggers (2003, and forthcoming) for an argumentation as to why linguistic historiography can be viewed as a particular application of l’histoire des techniques (as practised, e.g., by Marcel Mauss, André Leroi-Gourhan, André-G. Haudricourt, etc.).

9

assumptions) that have marked the evolutionary course of man’s interest in the basic metaphor

conveying sense (and non-sense) to life: language. An all too human history of pride and

prejudice*.

References ANKERSMIT, Frank R. Narrative Logic. A semantic analysis of the historian’s language. PhD

thesis, Groningen, 1981.

AUROUX, Sylvain. Histoire des sciences et entropie des systèmes scientifiques. Les horizons de

rétrospection. In: SCHMITTER (ed.) 1987–2007. v. 1, p.20-42.

AUROUX, Sylvain. (ed.) Histoire des idées linguistiques. Liège: Mardaga. 1989–2000. 3 v.

H.M.VERSTEEGH, Cornelis. (eds.) History of the Language Sciences. Berlin - New York: de

Gruyter, 2000–2006. 3 v.

BRAUDEL, Fernand. La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II. Paris:

Colin,1949.

BRAUDEL, Fernand. Civilisation matérielle, économie et capitalisme. Paris: Colin, 1967–70.

COLLINS, Randall. The Sociology of Philosophies. A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge

(Mass.): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1998.

COLOMBAT, Bernard; LAZCANO, Élisabeth (eds.). Corpus représentatif des grammaires et des

traditions linguistiques. [= Histoire, Épistémologie, Langage, hors-série nos 2 & 3] 1998–2000. 2 v.

COLOMBAT, Bernard ; SAVELLI, Marie (eds.) Métalangage et terminologie linguistiques. Actes

du colloque international de Grenoble (Université Stendhal – Grenoble III, 14-16 mai 1998). Leuven -

Paris - Sterling: Peeters, 2001.

* I am grateful to Mark Amsler (University of Auckland), Toon Van Hal and Alfons Wouters (both K.U. Leuven), and Alfonso Zamorano Aguilar (Universidad de Córdoba) for the exchange of ideas, at one time or another, concerning topics dealt with here.

10

DE CLERCQ, Jan ; SWIGGERS, Pierre. L’histoire de la linguistique: “L’autre histoire” et

“l’histoire d’une histoire”. In: FELDBUSCH, E.; POGARELL, R.; WEISS, C. (eds.). Neue

Fragen der Linguistik, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1991. v. 1, p.15-22.

DESMET, Piet; JOOKEN, Lieve; SCHMITTER, Peter; SWIGGERS, Pierre (eds.) The History of

Linguistic and Grammatical Praxis. Leuven - Paris - Sterling: Peeters, 2000.

DORTA, Josefa ; CORRALES, Cristóbal ; CORBELLA, Dolores (eds.). Historiografía de la

lingüística en el ámbito hispánico. Madrid: Arco Libros, 2007.

DUTZ, Klaus D. Methodologische Probleme in der Rekonstruktion sprachwissenschaftlichen

Wissens. Geschichte und Geschichten. In: HÜLLEN (ed.) 1990. p.49-60.

ELFFERS-VAN KETEL, Els. The Historiography of Grammatical Concepts. 19th- and 20th-century

changes in subject-predicate conception and the problem of their historical reconstruction.

Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1991.

FERNÁNDEZ PÉREZ, Milagros. La investigación lingüística desde la filosofía de la ciencia. Santiago de

Compostela: Servicio de Publicaciones da Universidade, 1986.

FERNÁNDEZ PÉREZ, Milagros. Planes de estudio y enseñanza de la historia de la lingüística.

In: MAQUIEIRA, M. ; MARTINEZ GAVILAN, M.D. ; VILLAYANDRE, M. (eds.) Actas del

Segundo Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Historiografía lingüística, Madrid: Arco Libros, 2001. p.407-

415.

FERNÁNDEZ PÉREZ, Milagros. Método de enseñanza para el aprendizaje de la historia de la

lingüística. In: DORTA ; CORRALES ; CORBELLA (eds.), 2007. p. 527-545.

FOUCAULT, Michel. Les mots et les choses. Paris: Gallimard, 1966.

_______. L’archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard, 1969.

GALISON, Peter. How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.

11

_______. Image and Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

GÖBELS, Astrid. Die Tradition der Universalgrammatik im England des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts.

Münster: Nodus, 1999.

GÓMEZ ASENCIO, José J. La edición de textos clásicos y su contribución al desarrollo de la

historiografía lingüística. In: DORTA ; CORRALES ; CORBELLA (eds.), 2007, p.479-499.

GROTSCH, Klaus. Sprachwissenschaftsgeschichtsschreibung: Ein Beitrag zur Kritik und zur

historischen und methodologischen Selbstvergewisserung der Disziplin. Göppingen: Kümmerle,

1982.

HARRIS, Randy Allen. Argumentation in Syntactic Structures. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 19, 1989,

p. 103-124.

________. The Linguistics Wars. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

HÜLLEN, Werner (ed.). Understanding the Historiography of Linguistics. Problems and Projects.

Münster: Nodus, 1990.

HÜLLEN, Werner. English Dictionaries 800–1700. The Topical Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon,

1999.

HYMES, Dell. Introduction. Traditions and paradigms. In: HYMES (ed.), 1974, p.1-38.

HYMES, Dell H (ed.). Studies in the History of Linguistics: Traditions and paradigms. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press, 1974.

ITKONEN, Esa. Universal History of Linguistics: India, China, Arabia, Europe. Amsterdam -

Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 1991.

KOERNER, E.F. Konrad. Toward a Historiography of Linguistics. Selected Essays. Amsterdam: J.

Benjamins, 1978.

12

_______. Practicing Linguistic Historiography. Selected Essays. Amsterdam - Philadelphia: J.

Benjamins, 1989.

________. Professing Linguistic Historiography. Amsterdam - Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 1995.

________. Linguistic Historiography: Projects & Prospects. Amsterdam - Philadelphia: J. Benjamins,

1999.

________. Essays in the History of Linguistics. Amsterdam - Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 2004.

_________. La Historiografía de la lingüística. Pasado, presente, futuro. In: DORTA ;

CORRALES ; CORBELLA (eds.) 2007. p. 15-56.

KUHN, Thomas Samuel. The Essential Tension. Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and

Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.

LAW, Vivien. The History of Morphology: Expression of a Change in Consciousness. In:

HÜLLEN (ed.), 1990. p.61-74.

________. In Defense of Contextualism. In: SCHMITTER; VAN DER WAL (eds.), 1998.

p.119-125.

________. The History of Linguistics in Europe from Plato to 1600. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2003.

LEPSCHY, Giulio (ed.). History of Linguistics. London: Longman, 1994–98. 4v.

MALKIEL, Yakov; LANGDON, Margaret. History and Histories of Linguistics. Romance

Philology 22, 1969, p.530-569.

MILLER, Roy Andrew. The Far East. In: SEBEOK (ed.), 1975. p.1214-1264.

MURRAY, Stephen O. Theory Groups and the Study of Language in North America. A social history.

Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1994.

13

NOORDEGRAAF, Jan. National Traditions and Linguistic Historiography. The case of general

grammar in the Netherlands. In: HÜLLEN (ed.), 1990. p.287-302.

PARRET, Herman (ed.). History of Linguistic Thought and Contemporary Linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter,

1976.

PERCIVAL, W. Keith. The Applicability of Kuhn’s Paradigms to the History of Linguistics.

Language 52, 1976, p.285-294.

RIDRUEJO, Emilio. Lingüística misionera. In: DORTA ; CORRALES ; CORBELLA (eds.),

2007. p.435-477.

ROBINS, Robert H. Some Continuities and Discontinuities in the History of Linguistics. In:

PARRET (ed.), 1976. p.13-31.

ROGGENBÜCK, Simone. Die Wiederkehr der Bilder. Arboreszenz und Raster in der

interdisziplinären Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft. Tübingen: Narr, 2005.

SCHMITTER, Peter. Untersuchungen zur Historiographie der Linguistik: Struktur – Methodik –

theoretische Fundierung. Tübingen: Narr, 1982.

________ (ed.). Geschichte der Sprachtheorie. Tübingen: Narr. 1987–2007. 9 v.

________. Historiographie und Metahistoriographie. In: HÜLLEN (ed.), 1990. p.35-48.

________. Narrativity as a metahistorical term: Some systematic and historical considerations. In:

CARLON, K.; DAVIDSE, K.; RUDZKA-OSTYN, B. (eds.). Perspectives on English. Studies in

honour of Professor Emma Vorlat. Leuven: Peeters, 1994. p.140-157.

_________. Der Begriff des Forschungsprogramms als metahistoriographische Kategorie der

Wissenschaftsgeschichtsschreibung der Linguistik. In: SCHMITTER; VAN DER WAL (eds.),

1998. p.133-152.

14

_________. Historiographie und Narration. Metahistoriographische Aspekte der

Wissenschaftsgeschichtsschreibung der Linguistik. Tübingen: Narr; Seoul: Sowadalmedia, 2003.

SCHMITTER, Peter; Marijke VAN DER WAL (eds.). Metahistoriography. Theoretical and

methodological aspects of the historiography of linguistics. Münster: Nodus, 1998.

SCHON, Donald. Invention and the Evolution of Ideas. London: Tavistock, 1963.

SEBEOK, Thomas A. (ed.). Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 13: Historiography of Linguistics.

The Hague: Mouton, 1975.

SIMONE, Raffaele. Purus historicus est asinus: Quattro modi di fare storia della linguistica.

Lingua e Stile 30, p.117-126, 1995.

STAMMERJOHANN, Harro (ed.). Lexicon grammaticorum. A bio-bibliographical companion to

the history of linguistics. Second edition. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2009.

STEGMÜLLER, Wolfgang. The Structuralist View of Theories. Berlin: Springer, 1979.

SWIGGERS, Pierre. The History-writing of Linguistics: A Methodological Note. General

Linguistics 21,v.1, p.11-16, 1981a.

________. Comment écrire l’histoire de la linguistique?. Lingua 55, p.63-74, 1981b.

________. La méthodologie de l’historiographie de la linguistique. Folia Linguistica Historica 4,

p.55-79, 1983.

________. La construction d’une théorie de l’historiographie de la linguistique: quelques

réflexions méthodologiques. In: AUROUX, S. et al. (ed.). Matériaux pour une histoire des théories

linguistiques, Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille, 1984. p.15-21.

________. Histoire et histoires de la linguistique: Bibliographique systématique. L’Information

grammaticale 32, p.29-31, 1987a.

15

________. Remarques sur le langage historiographique. In: RION, P. (ed.). Histoire sans paroles,

Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters, 1987b, p. 29-48.

________. Les premières grammaires des vernaculaires gallo-romans face à la tradition latine:

stratégies d’adaptation et de transformation. In: ROSIER, I. (ed.). L’héritage des grammairiens latins

de l’Antiquité aux Lumières, Paris: Société pour l’Information grammaticale , 1988. p.259-269.

________. Reflections on (Models for) Linguistic Historiography. In: HÜLLEN (ed.), 1990.

p.21-34.

_________. L’historiographie des sciences du langage: intérêts et programmes. In:

INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF LINGUISTS, 14, 1987 (August 10 – August 15),

Berlin/GDR, Proceedings, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1991a. p.2713-2716

_________. Creuser dans l’histoire des sciences du langage: vers une archéologie du savoir

linguistique. In: SAINT-GERAND, J.-Ph. (ed.). La constitution du document en histoire des sciences

du langage (= La Licorne 19), 1991b. p. 115-134.

________. L’étymologie: Les transformations de l’étude historique du vocabulaire aux Temps

Modernes, 1996. In: Schmitter ed. 1987–2007. v. 5, p. 352-385.

________. Histoire de la pensée linguistique. Paris: P.U.F., 1997.

________. History of Linguistics. In: Encyclopedia Americana, v. 17,532f-532p. New York: Grolier,

1998.

_________. History of Linguistics: Overview. In: FRAWLEY, W.J. (ed.) International Encyclopedia

of Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003a. v. 2, p. 180-183.

_________. Continuités et discontinuités, tension et synergie: les rapports du latin et des langues

vernaculaires, reflétés dans la modélisation grammaticographique. In: GOYENS, M.;

VERBEKE, W. (eds.). The Dawn of the Written Vernacular in Western Europe, Leuven: Leuven

University Press. 2003b. p. 71-105.

_________. Modelos, métodos y problemas en la historiografía de la lingüística. In: Nuevas

aportaciones a la historiografía lingüística. Congreso Internacional de la SEHL , IV, 2005 (22 al

16

25 de octubre), La Laguna (Tenerife). Actas... (ed. CORRALES ZUMBADO, C. ; DORTA LUIS,

J. et al.) Madrid: Arco Libros, 2004. v. I, p. 113-146.

________. Another Brick in the Wall: The Dynamics of the History of Linguistics. Amicitia in

Academia. Composities voor Els Elffers (ed. NOORDEGRAAF, J.; VONK, F.; VAN DER WAL,

M. ). Münster: Nodus. 2006, p. 21-28.

________. La historiografía de la lingüística: apuntes y reflexiones. Revista argentina de historiografía

lingüística 1, p. 67-76, 2009.

________. L’homme et la matière grammaticale: Historiographie et histoire de la grammaire. No

prelo.

SWIGGERS, Pierre ; DESMET, Piet ; JOOKEN, Lieve. Metahistoriography Meets (Linguistic)

Historiography. In: SCHMITTER ; VAN DER WAL (eds.). 1998a. p. 29-59.

_________. History, Historiography, Metahistoriography: The (Non Trivial?) Sign of Three; or,

History, Where are You?. In: SCHMITTER;VAN DER WAL (eds.) 1998b. p. 77-85.

SWIGGERS, Pierre; WOUTERS, Alfons (eds.). Ancient Grammar: Content and Context. Leuven -

Paris: Peeters, 1996.

TOULMIN, Stephen. The Philosophy of Science. London: Hutchinson, 1960.

VEYNE, Paul. Comment on écrit l’histoire. Essai d’épistémologie. Paris: Seuil, 1971.

WALDMAN, Nahum. The Hebrew Traditon. In: SEBEOK (ed.), 1975. p.1285-1330.

ZWARTJES, Otto; ALTMAN, Cristina (eds.) Missionary Linguistics II/Lingüística misionera II.

Amsterdam - Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 2005.

ZWARTJES, Otto; HOVDHAUGEN, Even (eds.) Missionary Linguistics [I]/Lingüística misionera

[I]. Amsterdam - Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 2004.

17

ZWARTJES, Otto; JAMES, Gregory; RIDRUEJO, Emilio (eds.) Missionary Linguistics

III/Lingüística misionera III. Morphology and Syntax. Amsterdam - Philadelphia: J. Benjamins,

2007.

_____________________________

AUTOR 1 Pierre SWIGGERS, Dr.

Katholieke Universiteit (K.U. Leuven), Center for the Historiography of Linguistics

swiggers@arts.kuleuven.ac.be

18